For those of you who’ve read either of the first two weeks of the College Football Champion Index™, you know that a section is specifically dedicated to the Arkansas Razorbacks. This week, more general coverage of the Top 10 is further below. [Having put out four posts this week, regretfully this is not totally finished, but I won’t realistically have time to do so. Nonetheless, there are still a few points to be made. I’ll do better next week. ]

Arkansas vs. Alabama through the CFCI Lens

The short explanation of the College Football Champion Index™ is that the CFCI comes from studying the statistical performances of BCS Champions over the last 11 years and determining the categories which separate the best in college football from the rest. Although it’s in its infancy and may be tweaked, applying the same method to the 2008, 2009, and 2010 seasons found that the CFCI chose all of the Top 15 from the Final AP Top 25 Poll and consistently selected 20 or 21 of the Final AP Top 25 and the Final USA Today Top 25 Polls. What may be unique is that the CFCI in its current version makes these assessments without considering strength of schedule (SoS may still be added if other ways cannot be found to refine the CFCI further). It’s expected to be more accurate later in the season. The Performance Index is just that while the Elimination Index factors in losses to eliminate a team from BCS Championship contention. However, even at this point in the season, if a team is not performing up to Champion standards, it’s very difficult to predict that the team will do so in its conference schedule.

After the first three weeks, Alabama has played what most consider to be a more difficult schedule by virtue of playing Penn State. Alabama ranks 13th in the Performance Index with a 0.916 rating over Arkansas which ranks 16th with a rating of 0.905 out of a possible 1.000. For the Elimination Index the teams rank 10th and 12th respectively after considering that two teams with higher performance ratings have suffered losses.

In terms of first downs, Arkansas and Alabama both meet or exceed the BCS Champion’s stats at this stage while on the other side of the ball the Crimson Tide permits only 6 points per game, and the Hogs are keeping opponents to just under 13 points. Both are within Champion standards. As a part of Total Defense both teams rack up the points in Rushing Defense, but when it comes to Pass Defense, the Razorbacks are allowing almost twice as many yards through the air than the Tide (214 v. 114). Nonetheless, for the CFCI the Hogs almost meet the College Football Champion standard so the separation between the two schools is minimal.

When the teams are compared for Scoring Offense, as might be expected, the Razorbacks more than exceed the standard while the Tide just meets it. Alabama’s biggest deficiency rests with Passing Efficiency Offense. At 122, the Tide QBs have managed a pretty poor rating which is well below the Champion Index standard. The Hogs more than meet the Passing Efficiency Standard. Both teams are at -1 or more in Turnover Margin leaving each with about half the points allotted for that category. With Alabama and Arkansas having only 4 and 3 Sacks each for the Season, both are well below the CFCI standard and earn about the same points. Interestingly, Alabama does not meet the standard for 3rd Down Conversion percentage where the Arkansas exceeds it. As part of Total Offense, it is easily within expectations that Arkansas does not quite meet the Rushing standard and exceeds the Passing standard while Alabama flip flops the same.

In three short weeks, the CFCI is very much hit-and-miss when it comes to predicting games and really wasn’t designed for that purpose. The Index is more to track teams’ movements to the BCS National Championship and might end up proving (on an outside chance) that when viewed in the correct way, strength of schedule doesn’t matter. However, when LSU played Mississippi State, the difference in the two ratings was .135 or on a 100 point scale, 13.5. LSU won by 13. It was probably a coincidence. At the same time, the CFCI showed Auburn to be a substantially better team than Clemson, but the South Carolina Tigers took that victory in convincing fashion. Applying the same standards which are indicative of BCS Champions to each team, thus far Alabama only shows to be slightly better, but it’s difficult to say that a team is “weak” in an area because it barely misses a BCS Champion standard. That’s where every team wants to be.

Out of all of the numbers, the most likely place to look for a weakness in Alabama is in the lowest ranking of the bunch, but even then the analysis requires some understanding. Alabama ranks 76th in in the country in Passing Efficiency understanding that the Tide have played A.J. McCarron AND Phillip Sims. Sims’ passing efficiency rating against Kent State was an atrocious 65 while A.J. McCarron clocked in at 140. It was a similar story against North Texas where McCarron had a very good rating of 147 and Sims had a passable 127 rating. At least in these two games, A.J. (Apple Jack?) showed he could manage the passing game to get close to the BCS Champion standard. A 144 rating would have the Tide rank between 40th-45th in the country where the BCS average rank is 45th. However, in the game everyone looks to in order to determine Alabama’s superiority, i.e. the Penn St. game, McCarron and Alabama turned in a 116 rating where he was the only QB to play for the Tide. To put his overall performance passing the ball into perspective, the numbers behind the CFCI can do just that. For McCarron’s play alone his average passing efficiency rating is 134 points. If you look at Evaluating the Hogs’ Chances for a BCS Championship you’ll see that no BCS Champion for the last 11 years has had a season Offensive Pass Efficiency rating of less than 133.

Consider this against Penn State:

Alabama Passing against Penn State

Pass Play

Drive

Pass Result

Yards

1

1

Incomplete

0

2

1

Incomplete

0

3

2

Incomplete

0

4

2

Complete

5

5

2

Complete

29

6

2

Complete

14

7

2

Complete

6

8

2

Complete

5

9

3

Complete

8

10

3

Complete

6

11

3

Incomplete

0

12

4

Complete

-1

13

5

Complete

7

14

5

Incomplete

0

15

5

Complete

6

16

5

Complete

6

17

5

Complete

7

18

5

Incomplete

0

19

5

Complete

12

20

6

Complete

5

21

6

Incomplete

0

22

7

Complete

3

23

7

Incomplete

0

24

8

Incomplete

0

25

9

Complete

7

26

9

Complete

24

27

9

Incomplete

0

28

10

Incomplete

0

29

10

Complete

4

30

11

Complete

10

31

11

Incomplete

0

Try Sorting by Yards

It fits with what I’ve seen on the field from A. J. McCarron. Last season against Auburn late in the game, McCarron looked pitiful. At times this season against Kent St. and North Texas he’s connected on longer throws 30 to 40 yards down the field.

If there’s a way the Hogs can stop the Tide. It’s here.

College Football Champion Index™ Week 3

Performance Rank

Performance

CFCI Index Wk. 3

Elimination

Elimination Rank

1

0.986

Ohio

0.986

1

2

0.978

Virginia Tech

0.978

2

3

0.969

Illinois

0.969

3

4

0.960

Wisconsin

0.960

4

5

0.958

LSU

0.958

5

7

0.947

South Fla.

0.947

6

8

0.941

Florida

0.941

7

10

0.937

Stanford

0.937

8

12

0.923

Texas A&M

0.923

9

13

0.916

Alabama

0.916

10

14

0.908

Oklahoma

0.908

11

16

0.905

Arkansas

0.905

12

17

0.903

Texas

0.903

13

18

0.899

Texas Tech

0.899

14

22

0.878

Southern California

0.878

15

23

0.875

Vanderbilt

0.875

16

24

0.873

California

0.873

17

25

0.871

Oklahoma St.

0.871

18

26

0.870

Georgia Tech

0.870

19

30

0.865

North Carolina

0.865

20

31

0.864

San Diego St.

0.864

21

35

0.850

Kansas St.

0.850

22

38

0.840

Boise St.

0.840

23

42

0.838

FIU

0.838

24

43

0.835

Wyoming

0.835

25

50

0.811

Clemson

0.811

26

52

0.804

Nebraska

0.804

27

57

0.795

Baylor

0.795

28

62

0.779

Michigan

0.779

29

63

0.776

West Virginia

0.776

30

70

0.759

Houston

0.759

31

79

0.738

South Carolina

0.738

32

80

0.736

Iowa St.

0.736

33

6

0.947

UCF

0.631

34

9

0.938

Temple

0.625

35

11

0.928

Missouri

0.619

36

15

0.907

Florida St.

0.605

37

19

0.888

Bowling Green

0.592

38

20

0.882

Michigan St.

0.588

39

21

0.879

Western Mich.

0.586

40

27

0.869

Purdue

0.579

41

28

0.868

Ohio St.

0.579

42

29

0.866

Southern Miss.

0.577

43

32

0.857

Utah

0.571

44

33

0.856

Cincinnati

0.570

45

34

0.851

Oregon

0.568

46

36

0.847

Washington St.

0.565

47

37

0.846

Tulane

0.564

48

39

0.839

Arizona St.

0.560

49

40

0.839

Utah St.

0.560

50

41

0.838

Louisville

0.559

51

44

0.835

Rutgers

0.557

52

45

0.833

North Carolina St.

0.555

53

46

0.826

Northwestern

0.550

54

47

0.825

Virginia

0.550

55

48

0.813

Navy

0.542

56

49

0.812

TCU

0.541

57

51

0.809

Penn St.

0.539

58

54

0.802

Wake Forest

0.535

59

58

0.793

Colorado St.

0.529

60

59

0.787

Iowa

0.525

61

60

0.786

Pittsburgh

0.524

62

61

0.784

Washington

0.523

63

67

0.769

Tennessee

0.513

64

68

0.766

Eastern Mich.

0.511

65

69

0.764

Kentucky

0.510

66

71

0.758

SMU

0.505

67

75

0.742

Maryland

0.495

68

76

0.741

Air Force

0.494

69

78

0.739

Kansas

0.492

70

81

0.733

Ball St.

0.488

71

82

0.732

Syracuse

0.488

72

87

0.716

UTEP

0.477

73

88

0.713

Auburn

0.475

74

91

0.695

Miami (FL)

0.464

75

92

0.693

La.-Lafayette

0.462

76

106

0.618

Rice

0.412

77

107

0.613

Nevada

0.409

78

53

0.802

Connecticut

0.401

79

55

0.800

Mississippi St.

0.400

80

56

0.796

Louisiana Tech

0.398

81

64

0.773

Georgia

0.386

82

65

0.770

Buffalo

0.385

83

66

0.769

Colorado

0.384

84

72

0.756

Arkansas St.

0.378

85

73

0.754

Indiana

0.377

86

74

0.748

Notre Dame

0.374

87

77

0.739

Toledo

0.369

88

83

0.731

La.-Monroe

0.365

89

84

0.725

Northern Ill.

0.363

90

85

0.720

Fresno St.

0.360

91

86

0.716

Minnesota

0.358

92

89

0.701

UCLA

0.351

93

90

0.696

Hawaii

0.348

94

93

0.688

Central Mich.

0.344

95

94

0.683

Tulsa

0.342

96

95

0.674

Duke

0.337

97

96

0.670

Ole Miss

0.335

98

97

0.662

New Mexico St.

0.331

99

98

0.651

Middle Tenn.

0.326

100

99

0.648

Marshall

0.324

101

100

0.646

Arizona

0.323

102

101

0.645

Army

0.322

103

102

0.636

Troy

0.318

104

103

0.634

UNLV

0.317

105

104

0.628

Memphis

0.314

106

105

0.623

Idaho

0.311

107

108

0.608

Oregon St.

0.304

108

109

0.605

Miami (OH)

0.302

109

110

0.585

East Carolina

0.293

110

115

0.560

BYU

0.280

111

111

0.578

Western Ky.

0.231

112

112

0.566

North Texas

0.226

113

113

0.563

New Mexico

0.225

114

114

0.560

Boston College

0.224

115

116

0.529

Kent St.

0.212

116

117

0.516

San Jose St.

0.206

117

119

0.380

Fla. Atlantic

0.190

118

120

0.356

UAB

0.178

119

118

0.422

Akron

0.169

120

Sort as you like.

“What have you done for me lately?” might be the theme of this Week’s College Football Champion Index’s unforgiving results. Without a strength of schedule component (although we’re leaving the option open for the latter part of the season), last week’s team which best feasted on cupcakes dropped fast, hard and far in one week.

Bowling Green can say it was fun while it lasted. Dropping 18 spots in performance and 37 in elimination, the Falcons can look forward to next year. Stepping up to replace them, Ohio University feasted for another week on Marshall. If they do well against Rutgers next week, they may roll for a few weeks afterward and force a strength of schedule evaluation. …continued below

At No. 2 vaulting all the way from No. 16 last week is Va Tech. The Hokies feasted on the Arkansas State Red Wolves 26-7 last Saturday, while through 3 weeks, they post single digit NCAA rankings in the defensive categories which count the most. With Marshall coming up next week, Va Tech looks to go back to the table for seconds before having to contend with Clemson and the U in the following weeks.

Although challenged by Arizona St., this is a cumulative season ranking system and Illinois’ increase, despite only a 17-14 win, is attributed to feeding off excess stats from the first few games of the season. Slips by the Illini or any other team after “the fat” is gone won’t be soft landings. On October 15, 2011, Illinois will have the opportunity to prove it’s worthy when it faces Ohio St.

SharpTusk is a featured blogger on Hog Database. He won "2009 Blog Of The Year" as voted by members of SportingNews.com and has posts referenced by local and national sports writers. Sharp began writing about Arkansas Razorbacks Football during the coaching change in 2007 and hasn't stopped. He has an eye for interesting stats, and an occasional penchant for creative writing. He's sure to keep you coming back for more.